AI is just a tool — and other lies no one really believes
I swear I didn’t want to write about this subject again. I feel like I said what I needed to say the last time I wrote about AI.
But, then, a new film came out and reignited the debate. That film is Late Night with the Devil, which looks excellent and could conceivably be a breakout role for a great character actor, David Dastmalchian. Alas, it came to light that the filmmakers decided to use AI for some of the imagery in the film. Depending on your feelings on the tech, that either ignited a completely understandable or completely overblown firestorm. You can probably guess where I stand.
At the heart of the controversy is the value of art. It isn’t a question of whether AI can create something as sophisticated as a real human artist (it can’t), or whether the AI would have been particularly intrusive for most viewers (probably not). The point is, in a film that cost a few million dollars, at least, it would have only cost another few hundred to pay an actual artist. There are countless ways to save when your artmaking process is on a tight budget; cutting the artists out of it isn’t a good one.
Naturally, as the debate raged online, a number of well-worn tropes about AI got trotted out. To save myself (and maybe you) time, I decided to address some of the most common talking points on the subject and do away with some AI myths.
AI is just a tool
When people say “AI is just a tool,” what they really mean is that it serves a function in a workplace. It allows them to do some part of their job (or all of it) much faster. Which, of course, sounds great; it’s hard to argue with something that makes work easier. But the function of an actual tool is augmenting the work of a human, not replacing it.
AI isn’t a hammer. It isn’t a lawnmower. It isn’t even Photoshop (though, not a terrible comparison, especially as AI features take over that application). What AI is, in reality, is automation. Widespread, pervasive automation, at our fingertips and in our pockets. It doesn’t help you hammer faster, it slams the nail into place while you’re off measuring a piece of wood. Who couldn’t love that?
Perhaps the worker who doesn’t have a job anymore because a boss now assumes a job that once took two people should only take one person.
Yes, automation is great. From the owners’ point of view. And from the consumers’ point of view. Life in the developed world has benefited greatly from automation, much of which began decades ago. But can anyone seriously argue automation is good for workers as a social class? Has there ever been a widescale adoption of automation that hasn’t resulted in layoffs and cuts in pay?
The promise of technology has always been that it would set us free. But, while the last three decades have seen more technological advances than anytime in history, American workers aren’t working any fewer hours than they were 30 years ago, and wealth inequality has grown.
Automation isn’t pure evil; it doesn’t make the world a worse place (except in the cases where it does). When automation can be used to do dangerous tasks, there’s a clear benefit. For all its benefits, though, automation always has downsides for someone, usually the workers who once did the job. It is possible for something to benefit some people — even some people in the working class — while still having a net negative effect.
AI isn’t just a tool — no one really believes that line. AI is the widescale replacement and depreciation of labor. Your job might be safe now, but if AI can be used to devalue one type of work, why wouldn’t it be used to do so with others?
READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE AT 10CITIES10YEARS.COM
